JANGAMGUNTA BALASUBRAMANIUM Vs. ATLURI RAVINDRANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO cross First Appeals No.538/2006 & 203/2007 have been filed by Jangamgunta Balasubramanium and others, who were the complainants before the State Commission, and Dr.Atluri Ravindranath and another, Respondent before the State Commission respectively being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Complaint No.89/2002. Since the facts and the parties involved in both Appeals are the same, it is proposed to dispose of these cases by a common order by taking the facts from First Appeal No.203 of 2007. Jangamgunta Balasubramnium (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant No.1') and his three minor children are other Appellants.

(2.) THE Appellant No.1's wife, Smt.J.Madhavi (hereinafter referred to as the 'patient') conceived for the second time and underwent regular medical check-ups upto the sixth month of pregnancy in Chennai where Appellant No.1 was informed that her condition was normal. In her seventh month of pregnancy, patient went to her parent's home in Vijayawada and was under the medical care of Respondents No.1 and 2. On 1.8.2000, she was admitted in Respondent No.1's Nursing Home and underwent a caesarean section on 2.8.2000 and delivered healthy twin babies. In the evening of 03.08.2000, there was gushing of fluids from the stitches of the surgery site as also blockage of urine and Appellant's father-in-law informed the Respondent No.1 who after examining her referred her to a Radiologist, Dr.B.Venkata Rathnam (Respondent No.6) and thereafter informed Appellant's father-in-law that a re-operation was necessary because complications had developed due to mounting pressure upon the kidneys because of the twin pregnancy. Respondents No.1 and 2 conducted an Exploratory Laparotomy on 04.08.2000 and thereafter the patient was admitted in Aruna Kidney Centre for dialyses as advised by Respondent No.4, who was a Nephrologist. Since her lungs had also got affected, Respondent No.4 also referred the patient to Respondent No.5 and Respondent No.6 and thereafter she was admitted in Respondent No.6's hospital where she was put on ventilator and sent every two days to Aruna Kidney Centre for dialyses. However, patient's condition continued to deteriorate and she died on 07.08.2000. A post-mortem conducted by a team of 3 doctors concluded that the cause of the death was Septicaemia resulting from post-operative complications. Appellant issued a legal notice to Respondents holding them responsible for the death of his wife due to their medical negligence and demanded compensation of Rs.10 lakhs which included the heavy expenditure incurred on the medical treatment of the patient.

(3.) RESPONDENTS denied that there was any medical negligence in this case. Respondents No.1 and 2 stated that the complications may have arisen after the patient was admitted in Aruna Kidney Centre since the laparotomy conducted following leakage of fluids did not reveal any urological problem. It was only re-confirmed that the patient was having pregnancy complications such as eclampsia and kidney failure because of which a Nephrologist was also consulted. Further, neither the post-mortem report nor the criminal complaint filed against Respondents (in which they were acquitted) indicated any medical negligence on their part. Other Respondents i.e. Respondents No.3,4,5 and 6 stated that by the time they had seen the patient, she was already in a critical condition and despite being given the best intensive care which included dialyses and ventilator support, patient could not be saved.